FIR No.

98/21
PS : Kotwali (Crime Branch)
Sandeep Singh Sidhu @ Deep Sidhu Vs. State (The NCT of Delhi)
U/s 147/148/149/153/452/34 IPC, 25/27 Arms Act, 3/4 of PDPP Act, 2 PINH Act, 30A/30B
AMASR Act

26.04.2021
Vide Office Order No.256/RG/DHC/2021 dated 08.04.2021 of Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi, the cases are being taken up through Video Conferencing today.
Joined through Video conferencing.
The present application for grant of bail U/s 437 Cr.P.C. has been moved
on behalf of applicant/accused Sandeep Singh Sidhu @ Deep Sidhu S/o Late Shri
Surjit Singh in FIR No. 98/2021.
Present : Sh. Rajiv Kamboj, Ld. APP for the State.

Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused has submitted that the FIR No. 96/2021 was
registered at PS Kotwali on 27.01.2021 in connection with violence that erupted on Republic
Day at the Red Fort. That the present FIR No. 98/2021 was registered on 28.01.2021, at
PS Kotwali, again in connection with violence and resultant damage at Red Fort. That the
accused was arrested in the aforesaid FIR on 09.02.2021 and was sent to police custody
for 14 days where he fully cooperated with the investigation of the case. Thereafter, the
accused was sent to Judicial Custody on 23.02.2021 and has been in custody for about 70
days till date. That the facts and allegations in both the FIR’s are identical as both relate to
violence and alleged damage caused to the Red Fort on the Republic Day and registration
of subsequent FIR is an abuse of process of law. Further, it is submitted that an application
for the regular bail u/s 439 Cr.P.C with respect to FIR No. 96/2021 was heard at length by
the Learned Addl. Sessions Judge and was granted regular bail vide order dated 16.04.2021
which was communicated in the morning of 17.04.2021. That before the accused could be
released from jail, he was arrested in present FIR No. 98/2021 in respect of same incident
at Red Fort. That the need and timing of arrest is extremely questionable as the said arrest
has been made in the present FIR on the day when the petitioner secured regular bail in
FIR No. 98/2021 and was to be released. That the said arrest is clearly Mala fide and is a
desperate attempt to defeat the bail order dated 16.04.2021 of Ld. ASJ. Further, it is
submitted that the accused has been arrested in the present FIR only on 17.04.2021 i.e.
after an inordinate and unexplainable delay of 80 days after registration of the FIR No.
98/2021 on 28.01.2021.
 Reply of IO has been filed electronically. Copy of same has been sent to Ld.
Counsel for the applicant/accused electronically. IO, in his reply, has stated that during the
course of investigation, CCTV footage as well as media clips were obtained and analysed
and the accused Sandeep Singh Sidhu @ Deep Sidhu was seen at Red Fort at the time of
the incident and was also seen in some videos, instigating protestors against the
government well before the incident dated 26.01.2021 at Red Fort, Delhi. That at the time
of the incident, accused Deep Sidhu was live on his Facebook page covering the incident
and was also seen appreciating co-accused Jugraj Singh, who was seen hoisting a religious
flag on the flagpole of rampart at Red Fort. That it has come on record that the above unruly
mob attacked the police and security personnel and caused injuries with deadly weapons,
destroyed public property at large, robbed arms and ammunitions. That during this riot at
Red Fort, a total of 167 individuals sustained injuries, out of which 144 were policemen
(Delhi Police / CRPF / CISF & SSB) and 23 were civilians including media persons. That the
riotous mob carrying spears, swords, lathis etc. indulged into such act of terror, that created
mayhem at Red Fort and sabotaged government property and also damaged the building
of Red Fort, a national heritage site and pride of India. IO has opposed the bail application
on the following grounds:
a) That the present case is very sensitive in nature involving damage to red
Fort property, symbol of national pride by rioting, and allegations are grave and serious in
nature.
b) That the accused was well conversant with the fact that the protestors were
not following the prescribed route with the terms and conditions as provided by Delhi Police,
still he reached Red Fort in pursuance of criminal conspiracy to join the riotous mob during
agitation and he is equally liable for the commission of all the offences committed by the
unruly mob.
c) That the accused is one of the main conspirators, who was seen most of the
time with one Jugraj Singh at Red Fort, who hoisted the religious flag who hoisted the
religious flag on the rampart of Red Fort.
d) That the accused had recorded various videos in & outside the
periphery/walls of Red Fort, wherein he is seen instigating the rioters. Furthermore, in these
videos the rioters are seen carrying spears, lathis, swords etc.
e) That the accused was instigating the riotous mob by raising slogans “JHUL
TE NISHAN REHAN” and the same was completed by the members of the unlawfully
assembled riotous lobby saying “PANT MAHARAJ DI”. That all this time applicant/accused
was. Live on Facebook, capturing his presence & incident live from his mobile camera.
 f) That there is every apprehension that is the accused is enlarged on bail, he
may help absconding accused Jugraj Singh and other accused persons evade their arrests,
who were part of the riotous mob.
g) That if the accused is enlarged on bail, he will again make his presence at
the different borders of Delhi, where the farmers are still protesting, to instigate and provoke
them against the Bill, continue protest and this might again give rise to another incident like
Red Fort riots in Delhi.

Ld. APP for the State has vehemently opposed the bail application on the
ground that though timing of arrest of the accused in present FIR may be questionable but
the Ld counsel for the accused has no answer as to why they did not go for quashing of the
FIR No. 98/2021 if they so believed that both the FIR’s were identical. Further it is submitted
that FIR No. 98/2021 is registered on different cause of action and role/conduct of the
accused is different in both the FIR’s. That the accused was well conversant with the fact
that the protestors were not following the designated route with the terms and conditions as
prescribed by Delhi Police, still he voluntarily chose to join the riotous mob. Further it is
submitted that the allegations are serious in nature and the accused may tamper with the
evidence which is evident from the fact that the accused had already destroyed both his
mobile phones along with the SIMs which he was using on the date and tome of the incident
and therefore, the bail application may be dismissed.
Submissions heard.
From prima facie perusal of contents of both the FIR’s, it appears that the
allegations levelled against the accused are similar in both the FIR’s. FIR No. 96/2021
registered on 27.01.2021 provides a comprehensive overview of the incident relating to
violence and alleged damage caused to the Red Fort on the Republic Day and the present
FIR merely reiterates the allegations, against the accused, as to the damage caused to the
Red Fort.
It would be worthwhile to observe that the Learned Addl. Sessions judge
granted regular bail to the accused in FIR No. 96/2021, vide order dated 16.04.2021, after
considering all the submissions of the prosecution and after noticing all the facts of violence
and damage to Red Fort and held –
‘None of the above acts are attributed specifically to have been committed by
the accused-applicant’.
Further it was observed –
‘The prosecution seeks to make an example out of the case of the accused,
he being a popular public figure, such an endeavour however hazards a failure of justice as
a result of compromised objectivity’.
During the arguments, Ld. Counsel for the accused highlighted the striking
similarities between the contentions that had been laid to rest vide order dated 16.04.2021,
granting bail to the accused after considering all arguments and detailed submissions and
the similar contentions that have been raised in the present FIR No. 98/2021.
The sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen
each time to fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same incident, giving rise to
one or more cognizable offences, consequent upon filing of successive FIR’s whether before
or after filing the final report. Fresh investigation based on the second and successive FIR’s,
not being a counter case, filed in connection with the same or connected cognizable offence
alleged to have been committed in the course of same transaction and in respect of which
pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is underway or fine report under section 173(2)
has been forwarded to the magistrate, is an abuse or process and impermissible.
The applicant-accused was arrested in the FIR No. 96/2021 on 09.02.2021
and the Investigating agency was given a total period of 14 days towards the police custody
in the said FIR. Thereafter, the accused was sent to Judicial Custody on 23.02.2021 and
has been in judicial custody since then. It would be worthwhile to observe that the accused
was granted regular bail u/s 439 Cr.P.C by the Ld. ASJ in FIR No. 96/2021 vide order dated
16.04.2021 and the said order was communicated in the morning of 17.04.2021. However,
before the accused could be released from jail, he was arrested in the present FIR dated
28.01.2021 also registered in respect of same incident at Red Fort. The need and timing of
the arrest is highly questionable because despite knowing that the accused has been lodged
in JC since 09.02.2021, he was arrested only on 17.04.2021, when he was granted regular
bail in FIR No.96/2021. This clearly suggests that it was an attempt to defeat the bail order
dated 16.04.2021 of the Ld. ASJ and is a grave affront to personal liberty of the accused
and runs foul of rights guaranteed under Article 21. Such vicious and sinister action of
investigative authorities amounts to playing fraud with established criminal process and
shows scant regard to constitutional protections enshrined, protected and cherished under
the Constitution on India. Ld. APP for the state, during the course of arguments, fairly
conceded that timing of arrest may be questionable but argued that Ld. Counsel for the
accused should have moved an application for quashing of the FIR No. 98/2021 under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court is of the opinion that it is the discretion of the accused whether
to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court U/s 482 Cr.P.C and it in no way precludes the
accused from moving an application for regular bail before the concerned court.
 Considering the submissions made, I am of the considered opinion that
Applicant’s further incarceration in the present case would bear no fruit and therefore would
be unjustified, nor would the restoration of Applicant’s liberty be detrimental to the
investigation being conducted by the police authorities. The accused has already been
interrogated in PC for 14 days and has been in custody for about 70 days when he has been
granted regular bail by Ld. ASJ on similar facts. Any further restraint upon his liberty would
be neither logical nor legal. Hence, applicant/accused Sandeep Singh Sidhu @ Deep
Sidhu is admitted to bail in case FIR No. 98/2021 subject to furnishing of personal bond
in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of like amount, to the satisfaction of Ld. Duty
MM as per prevailing duty roster, subject to the following conditions:-
1. That the accused person(s) shall join investigation as and when called.
2. That the accused person(s) shall attend the Court as per conditions of
bond to be executed.
3. That the accused person(s) shall not commit similar offence and;
4. That the accused person(s) shall not directly/indirectly induce, give
threat, or in any way dissuade the witnesses/persons acquainted with the facts of the
case and also shall not tamper with the evidence.
Accordingly, the present application is disposed off.
One copy of the order be uploaded on Delhi District Court Website. Copy of
order be also sent to the e-mail of jail superintendent and SHO PS Kotwali (Crime Branch)
and Ld. Counsel for the applicant. The printout of the application, reply and order be kept
for records and be tagged with the final report. SAHIL GUPTA Digitally signed by SAHIL GUPTA
Date: 2021.04.26 10:09:48 +05'30'

(Sahil Gupta)
Reliever MM (Central)/THC/Delhi
26.04.2021